-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
reviews.txt
17 lines (17 loc) · 21.5 KB
/
reviews.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
bromwell high is a cartoon comedy . it ran at the same time as some other programs about school life such as teachers . my years in the teaching profession lead me to believe that bromwell high s satire is much closer to reality than is teachers . the scramble to survive financially the insightful students who can see right through their pathetic teachers pomp the pettiness of the whole situation all remind me of the schools i knew and their students . when i saw the episode in which a student repeatedly tried to burn down the school i immediately recalled . . . . . . . . . at . . . . . . . . . . high . a classic line inspector i m here to sack one of your teachers . student welcome to bromwell high . i expect that many adults of my age think that bromwell high is far fetched . what a pity that it isn t
story of a man who has unnatural feelings for a pig . starts out with a opening scene that is a terrific example of absurd comedy . a formal orchestra audience is turned into an insane violent mob by the crazy chantings of it s singers . unfortunately it stays absurd the whole time with no general narrative eventually making it just too off putting . even those from the era should be turned off . the cryptic dialogue would make shakespeare seem easy to a third grader . on a technical level it s better than you might think with some good cinematography by future great vilmos zsigmond . future stars sally kirkland and frederic forrest can be seen briefly .
homelessness or houselessness as george carlin stated has been an issue for years but never a plan to help those on the street that were once considered human who did everything from going to school work or vote for the matter . most people think of the homeless as just a lost cause while worrying about things such as racism the war on iraq pressuring kids to succeed technology the elections inflation or worrying if they ll be next to end up on the streets . br br but what if you were given a bet to live on the streets for a month without the luxuries you once had from a home the entertainment sets a bathroom pictures on the wall a computer and everything you once treasure to see what it s like to be homeless that is goddard bolt s lesson . br br mel brooks who directs who stars as bolt plays a rich man who has everything in the world until deciding to make a bet with a sissy rival jeffery tambor to see if he can live in the streets for thirty days without the luxuries if bolt succeeds he can do what he wants with a future project of making more buildings . the bet s on where bolt is thrown on the street with a bracelet on his leg to monitor his every move where he can t step off the sidewalk . he s given the nickname pepto by a vagrant after it s written on his forehead where bolt meets other characters including a woman by the name of molly lesley ann warren an ex dancer who got divorce before losing her home and her pals sailor howard morris and fumes teddy wilson who are already used to the streets . they re survivors . bolt isn t . he s not used to reaching mutual agreements like he once did when being rich where it s fight or flight kill or be killed . br br while the love connection between molly and bolt wasn t necessary to plot i found life stinks to be one of mel brooks observant films where prior to being a comedy it shows a tender side compared to his slapstick work such as blazing saddles young frankenstein or spaceballs for the matter to show what it s like having something valuable before losing it the next day or on the other hand making a stupid bet like all rich people do when they don t know what to do with their money . maybe they should give it to the homeless instead of using it like monopoly money . br br or maybe this film will inspire you to help others .
airport starts as a brand new luxury plane is loaded up with valuable paintings such belonging to rich businessman philip stevens james stewart who is flying them a bunch of vip s to his estate in preparation of it being opened to the public as a museum also on board is stevens daughter julie kathleen quinlan her son . the luxury jetliner takes off as planned but mid air the plane is hi jacked by the co pilot chambers robert foxworth his two accomplice s banker monte markham wilson michael pataki who knock the passengers crew out with sleeping gas they plan to steal the valuable cargo land on a disused plane strip on an isolated island but while making his descent chambers almost hits an oil rig in the ocean loses control of the plane sending it crashing into the sea where it sinks to the bottom right bang in the middle of the bermuda triangle . with air in short supply water leaking in having flown over miles off course the problems mount for the survivor s as they await help with time fast running out . . . br br also known under the slightly different tile airport this second sequel to the smash hit disaster thriller airport was directed by jerry jameson while once again like it s predecessors i can t say airport is any sort of forgotten classic it is entertaining although not necessarily for the right reasons . out of the three airport films i have seen so far i actually liked this one the best just . it has my favourite plot of the three with a nice mid air hi jacking then the crashing didn t he see the oil rig sinking of the maybe the makers were trying to cross the original airport with another popular disaster flick of the period the poseidon adventure submerged is where it stays until the end with a stark dilemma facing those trapped inside either suffocate when the air runs out or drown as the floods or if any of the doors are opened it s a decent idea that could have made for a great little disaster flick but bad unsympathetic character s dull dialogue lethargic set pieces a real lack of danger or suspense or tension means this is a missed opportunity . while the rather sluggish plot keeps one entertained for odd minutes not that much happens after the plane sinks there s not as much urgency as i thought there should have been . even when the navy become involved things don t pick up that much with a few shots of huge ships helicopters flying about but there s just something lacking here . george kennedy as the jinxed airline worker joe patroni is back but only gets a couple of scenes barely even says anything preferring to just look worried in the background . br br the home video theatrical version of airport run minutes while the us tv versions add an extra hour of footage including a new opening credits sequence many more scenes with george kennedy as patroni flashbacks to flesh out character s longer rescue scenes the discovery or another couple of dead bodies including the navigator . while i would like to see this extra footage i am not sure i could sit through a near three hour cut of airport . as expected the film has dated badly with horrible fashions interior design choices i will say no more other than the toy plane model effects aren t great either . along with the other two airport sequels this takes pride of place in the razzie award s hall of shame although i can think of lots of worse films than this so i reckon that s a little harsh . the action scenes are a little dull unfortunately the pace is slow not much excitement or tension is generated which is a shame as i reckon this could have been a pretty good film if made properly . br br the production values are alright if nothing spectacular . the acting isn t great two time oscar winner jack lemmon has said since it was a mistake to star in this one time oscar winner james stewart looks old frail also one time oscar winner lee grant looks drunk while sir christopher lee is given little to do there are plenty of other familiar faces to look out for too . br br airport is the most disaster orientated of the three airport films so far i liked the ideas behind it even if they were a bit silly the production bland direction doesn t help though a film about a sunken plane just shouldn t be this boring or lethargic . followed by the concorde . . . airport .
brilliant over acting by lesley ann warren . best dramatic hobo lady i have ever seen and love scenes in clothes warehouse are second to none . the corn on face is a classic as good as anything in blazing saddles . the take on lawyers is also superb . after being accused of being a turncoat selling out his boss and being dishonest the lawyer of pepto bolt shrugs indifferently i m a lawyer he says . three funny words . jeffrey tambor a favorite from the later larry sanders show is fantastic here too as a mad millionaire who wants to crush the ghetto . his character is more malevolent than usual . the hospital scene and the scene where the homeless invade a demolition site are all time classics . look for the legs scene and the two big diggers fighting one bleeds . this movie gets better each time i see it which is quite often .
this film lacked something i couldn t put my finger on at first charisma on the part of the leading actress . this inevitably translated to lack of chemistry when she shared the screen with her leading man . even the romantic scenes came across as being merely the actors at play . it could very well have been the director who miscalculated what he needed from the actors . i just don t know . br br but could it have been the screenplay just exactly who was the chef in love with he seemed more enamored of his culinary skills and restaurant and ultimately of himself and his youthful exploits than of anybody or anything else . he never convinced me he was in love with the princess . br br i was disappointed in this movie . but don t forget it was nominated for an oscar so judge for yourself .
this is easily the most underrated film inn the brooks cannon . sure its flawed . it does not give a realistic view of homelessness unlike say how citizen kane gave a realistic view of lounge singers or titanic gave a realistic view of italians you idiots . many of the jokes fall flat . but still this film is very lovable in a way many comedies are not and to pull that off in a story about some of the most traditionally reviled members of society is truly impressive . its not the fisher king but its not crap either . my only complaint is that brooks should have cast someone else in the lead i love mel as a director and writer not so much as a lead .
sorry everyone i know this is supposed to be an art film but wow they should have handed out guns at the screening so people could blow their brains out and not watch . although the scene design and photographic direction was excellent this story is too painful to watch . the absence of a sound track was brutal . the loooonnnnng shots were too long . how long can you watch two people just sitting there and talking especially when the dialogue is two people complaining . i really had a hard time just getting through this film . the performances were excellent but how much of that dark sombre uninspired stuff can you take the only thing i liked was maureen stapleton and her red dress and dancing scene . otherwise this was a ripoff of bergman . and i m no fan f his either . i think anyone who says they enjoyed hours of this is well lying .
this is not the typical mel brooks film . it was much less slapstick than most of his movies and actually had a plot that was followable . leslie ann warren made the movie she is such a fantastic under rated actress . there were some moments that could have been fleshed out a bit more and some scenes that could probably have been cut to make the room to do so but all in all this is worth the price to rent and see it . the acting was good overall brooks himself did a good job without his characteristic speaking to directly to the audience . again warren was the best actor in the movie but fume and sailor both played their parts well .
when i was little my parents took me along to the theater to see interiors . it was one of many movies i watched with my parents but this was the only one we walked out of . since then i had never seen interiors until just recently and i could have lived out the rest of my life without it . what a pretentious ponderous and painfully boring piece of s wine and cheese tripe . woody allen is one of my favorite directors but interiors is by far the worst piece of crap of his career . in the unmistakable style of ingmar berman allen gives us a dark angular muted insight in to the lives of a family wrought by the psychological damage caused by divorce estrangement career love non love halitosis whatever . the film intentionally has no comic relief no music and is drenched in shadowy pathos . this film style can be best defined as expressionist in nature using an improvisational method of dialogue to illicit a more pronounced depth of meaning and truth . but woody allen is no ingmar bergman . the film is painfully slow and dull . but beyond that i simply had no connection with or sympathy for any of the characters . instead i felt only contempt for this parade of shuffling whining nicotine stained martyrs in a perpetual quest for identity . amid a backdrop of cosmopolitan affluence and baked brie intelligentsia the story looms like a fart in the room . everyone speaks in affected platitudes and elevated language between cigarettes . everyone is lost and struggling desperate to find direction or understanding or whatever and it just goes on and on to the point where you just want to slap all of them . it s never about resolution it s only about interminable introspective babble . it is nothing more than a psychological drama taken to an extreme beyond the audience s ability to connect . woody allen chose to make characters so immersed in themselves we feel left out . and for that reason i found this movie painfully self indulgent and spiritually draining . i see what he was going for but his insistence on promoting his message through prozac prose and distorted film techniques jettisons it past the point of relevance . i highly recommend this one if you re feeling a little too happy and need something to remind you of death . otherwise let s just pretend this film never happened .
this isn t the comedic robin williams nor is it the quirky insane robin williams of recent thriller fame . this is a hybrid of the classic drama without over dramatization mixed with robin s new love of the thriller . but this isn t a thriller per se . this is more a mystery suspense vehicle through which williams attempts to locate a sick boy and his keeper . br br also starring sandra oh and rory culkin this suspense drama plays pretty much like a news report until william s character gets close to achieving his goal . br br i must say that i was highly entertained though this movie fails to teach guide inspect or amuse . it felt more like i was watching a guy williams as he was actually performing the actions from a third person perspective . in other words it felt real and i was able to subscribe to the premise of the story . br br all in all it s worth a watch though it s definitely not friday saturday night fare . br br it rates a . from . . . br br the fiend .
it appears that many critics find the idea of a woody allen drama unpalatable . and for good reason they are unbearably wooden and pretentious imitations of bergman . and let s not kid ourselves critics were mostly supportive of allen s bergman pretensions allen s whining accusations to the contrary notwithstanding . what i don t get is this why was allen generally applauded for his originality in imitating bergman but the contemporaneous brian depalma was excoriated for ripping off hitchcock in his suspense horror films in robin wood s view it s a strange form of cultural snobbery . i would have to agree with that .
yes its an art . . . to successfully make a slow paced thriller . br br the story unfolds in nice volumes while you don t even notice it happening . br br fine performance by robin williams . the sexuality angles in the film can seem unnecessary and can probably affect how much you enjoy the film . however the core plot is very engaging . the movie doesn t rush onto you and still grips you enough to keep you wondering . the direction is good . use of lights to achieve desired affects of suspense and unexpectedness is good . br br very nice time watch if you are looking to lay back and hear a thrilling short story
the second attempt by a new york intellectual in less than years to make a swedish film the first being susan sontag s brother carl which was made in sweden with swedish actors no less the results oscar wilde said it best in reference to dickens the old curiosity shop one would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh out loud at the death of little nell . pretty much the same thing here . interiors is chock full of solemnly intoned howlers . i m afraid of my anger . looking into the middle distance i don t like who i m becoming . the directorial quotations to use a polite term from bergman are close to parody . the incredibly self involved family keep reminding us of how brilliant and talented they are to the point of strangulation . i read a poem of yours the other day . it was in i don t know the new yorker . oh . that was an old poem . i reworked it . far from not caring about these people however i found them quite hilarious . much of the dialog is exactly like the funny stuff from allen s earlier films only he s directed his actors to play the lines straight . having not cast himself in the movie he has poor mary beth hurt copy all of his thespian tics intonations and neurotic habits turning her into an embarrassing surrogate much like kenneth branagh in celebrity . br br the basic plot dysfunctional family with quietly domineering mother seems to be lifted more or less from bergman s winter light the basic family melodrama tricked up with a lot of existential angst . it all comes through in the shopworn visual aural tricks the deafening scratching of a pencil on paper the towering surf that dwarfs the people walking on the beach . etc etc . br br allen s later serious films are less embarrassing but also far less entertaining . i ll take interiors . woody s rarely made a funnier movie .
in this critically acclaimed psychological thriller based on true events gabriel robin williams a celebrated writer and late night talk show host becomes captivated by the harrowing story of a young listener and his adoptive mother toni collette . when troubling questions arise about this boy s story however gabriel finds himself drawn into a widening mystery that hides a deadly secret according to film s official synopsis . br br you really should stop reading these comments and watch the film now . . . br br the how did he lose his leg ending with ms . collette planning her new life should be chopped off and sent to deleted scenes land . it s overkill . the true nature of her physical and mental ailments should be obvious by the time mr . williams returns to new york . possibly her blindness could be in question but a revelation could have be made certain in either the highway or video tape scenes . the film would benefit from a re editing how about a director s cut br br williams and bobby cannavale as jess don t seem initially believable as a couple . a scene or two establishing their relationship might have helped set the stage . otherwise the cast is exemplary . williams offers an exceptionally strong characterization and not a gay impersonation . sandra oh as anna joe morton as ashe and rory culkin pete logand are all perfect . br br best of all collette s donna belongs in the creepy hall of fame . ms . oh is correct in saying collette might be you know like that guy from psycho . there have been several years when organizations giving acting awards seemed to reach for women due to a slighter dispersion of roles certainly they could have noticed collette with some award consideration . she is that good . and director patrick stettner definitely evokes hitchcock he even makes getting a sandwich from a vending machine suspenseful . br br finally writers stettner armistead maupin and terry anderson deserve gratitude from flight attendants everywhere . br br the night listener patrick stettner robin williams toni collette sandra oh rory culkin
i don t know who to blame the timid writers or the clueless director . it seemed to be one of those movies where so much was paid to the stars angie charlie denise rosanna and jon that there wasn t enough left to really make a movie . this could have been very entertaining but there was a veil of timidity even cowardice that hung over each scene . since it got an r rating anyway why was the ubiquitous bubble bath scene shot with a year old woman and not angie harmon why does sheen sleepwalk through potentially hot relationships with two of the most beautiful and sexy actresses in the world if they were only looking for laughs why not cast whoopi goldberg and judy tenuta instead this was so predictable i was surprised to find that the director wasn t a five year old . what a waste not just for the viewers but for the actors as well .
the night listener